A question for athiests

[Sojourner<><]

Why should it be somewhere else?

Oh, now you're just trying to give me a hard time

 

[Sojourner<><]

If I could answer your question, I would be supplying you with a cause to explain reality. However, that cause would also have to be real, making it an invalid answer for explaining reality.

Do you see that such a question cannot be answered, and is itself invalid?


eudaimonia,

Mark

That really just depends on how we define reality. For lack of a better word, what I mean by 'reality' is anything that is or can be known by humanity.

It may be a question that we can't find the answer to, but that does not mean that there is no answer.

 

[Lucretius]

Lucretius

I guess my contention then is, if the nateralistic mindset is an effect and not the cause of the scientific method, How can you say I MUST use it to make sense of the world? If scientists before the 17th/18th century didn't need it to make sense of the world, why do I?

Also, if nateralism is true, i still don't see how I have any belief other than determinism. A must = A. This is one of my issues. I feel like we're going around in circles and may have to agree to disagree. Although, I don't mind going in circles. anyway, i have more to type but can't do it now . . .

If science was not based on naturalism the problem should be obvious: you and I and anyone else can all believe different things cause the same effect. And because we all rely on supernatural "explanations" no one can prove any of us wrong — EVER! Things must be testable in the real world — the natural world. So, naturalism is a necessity for any science to be done. You can never draw a supernatural conclusion from natural effects. You can't do process of elimination when you possibly don't know all of the choices. You can't demonstrate the validity of an idea in science by kicking out all the other known ones.

for now I have one question for existence . . .

what is the relation of being to becoming in your view?

gotta go

Could you clarify a bit?

 

[Silenus]

If science was not based on naturalism the problem should be obvious: you and I and anyone else can all believe different things cause the same effect. And because we all rely on supernatural "explanations" no one can prove any of us wrong — EVER! Things must be testable in the real world — the natural world. So, naturalism is a necessity for any science to be done. You can never draw a supernatural conclusion from natural effects. You can't do process of elimination when you possibly don't know all of the choices. You can't demonstrate the validity of an idea in science by kicking out all the other known ones.

Well, I see and understand your point, but I still think axioms are chosen. We, however, don't choose them just for the heck of it. I think, by what we have both said, that we both choose axioms according to correspondence theory, i.e., you chose the axiom the explains reality. You obviously think naturalism, because it is limited to the senses, is a better option. But I must, first reiterate my previous statement, that the naturalist metaphysical axiom is not verifiable by the same criteria you have set forward. Secondly, historically, science is not based on naturalism, naturalism was a later development based on the hope that science would eventually unify particulars through observation.

You can never draw a supernatural conclusion from natural effects

You can begin to entertain supernatural explanations when the natural effects can not (deductively) explain phenomena. Notice I'm not talking about inductively explain, like we know that so and so happens but we can't explain why, science would be impossible without that. I'm talking about a phenomenon wherein it would be impossible to explain. Rationality, upon which all axioms are based, cannot be explained by naturalism, yet naturalism needs it to exist. Also, again, my second argument from way back shows how naturalism violates the logical law of identity A=A. These are not problems that can be solved by more evidence, they are right out contradictions. This is why I don't settle myself with a naturalistic axiom.

what is the relation of being to becoming in your view?

sorry, that question I asked for the existencepreceedsessence guy. I can explain if you want, but it was meant for him.

Let me be clear, I do not think science is bad or worthless. I also, however, do not think that science is the handmaiden of naturalism.

 

[Lucretius]

Well, I see and understand your point, but I still think axioms are chosen. We, however, don't choose them just for the heck of it. I think, by what we have both said, that we both choose axioms according to correspondence theory, i.e., you chose the axiom the explains reality. You obviously think naturalism, because it is limited to the senses, is a better option. But I must, first reiterate my previous statement, that the naturalist metaphysical axiom is not verifiable by the same criteria you have set forward. Secondly, historically, science is not based on naturalism, naturalism was a later development based on the hope that science would eventually unify particulars through observation.

The history of science has no bearing on the validity of past methods. Modern chemistry has a basis in medieval alchemy. Just because moden chemistry is valid does not make alchemy also valid by historical relationship.

You're right that I cannot verify naturalism by a proof. I validate it from experience. Seeing as science deals with examing things using said senses, science being methodically naturalistic seems like the most logical idea.

You can begin to entertain supernatural explanations when the natural effects can not (deductively) explain phenomena. Notice I'm not talking about inductively explain, like we know that so and so happens but we can't explain why, science would be impossible without that. I'm talking about a phenomenon wherein it would be impossible to explain. Rationality, upon which all axioms are based, cannot be explained by naturalism, yet naturalism needs it to exist. Also, again, my second argument from way back shows how naturalism violates the logical law of identity A=A. These are not problems that can be solved by more evidence, they are right out contradictions. This is why I don't settle myself with a naturalistic axiom.

Ah, but the problem is this: you would never be able to tell when induction is no longer valid and that you must switch to this deductive method. If you find something that could be apparently contradictory to logic (nothing of which has been found) you would never know if more observations will perhaps lead to something that actually isn't illogical. You could be leaving something out. No matter what you do; you will never rule out ALL of the possibilities. It is then never appropriate to suddenly introduce "explanations" which do not satisfy human need to test and replicate said things. Besides, don't you see that a "supernatural" explanation has no positive proof of it's own &#8212; that it can't? You're trying to do a game of "elimination" without knowing all of the possibilities or even if you've attained all your data. There is no reason to entertain such a hypothetical because it has never happened and no evidence suggests it ever will. If we had all knowledge and could be 100% sure of the validity of our observations; yes. However, such knowledge does not exist. Therefore, your deductive method will never work.

 

[quatona]

Oh, now you're just trying to give me a hard time

Exactly. It´s not like asking loaded nonsense-questions is your exclusive right.

 

[jwoodcould]

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that God is real, what do you believe governs reality? What's your theory? What is it that determines the rules of physics, the architecture of everything that is?

I havn't read all of the posts, but here is my perspective.

We do not know everything about reality and hopefully, as Dawkins said, we may discover that there are NO limits to how much we can learn about the universe.

That being said, filling the gaps of ignorance with mythology is unwise.

 

[Sojourner<><]

That being said, filling the gaps of ignorance with mythology is unwise.

I agree. To label something you don't understand as mythology would also be unwise.

 

[David Gould]

Wouldn't whatever existed be reality? As such, if there was nothing at all, and that nothing could think, it might ask, 'Why is reality - nothingness - here?'

 

[David Gould]

Further, does God ask this question?

 

[jwoodcould]

I agree. To label something you don't understand as mythology would also be unwise.

I didn't give an example now did I?
I generally don't try to target specific ideals unless they have already introduced themselves into the discussion. I was speaking about religion in general.

And to answer your attack, I understand the particular tenets of Christianity very well.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Wouldn't whatever existed be reality? As such, if there was nothing at all, and that nothing could think, it might ask, 'Why is reality - nothingness - here?'

Nothingness wouldn't have a positive existence, and so it wouldn't be "here". There would be no "here".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[David Gould]

Nothingness wouldn't have a positive existence, and so it wouldn't be "here". There would be no "here".


eudaimonia,

Mark

I guess what I am trying to say is that wondering why there is something other than nothing is a bit silly. Even if there was nothing, the question would still be why? (I know that it could not be asked, but philsophically it is just as much of a problem).

 

[Sojourner<><]

I guess what I am trying to say is that wondering why there is something other than nothing is a bit silly. Even if there was nothing, the question would still be why? (I know that it could not be asked, but philsophically it is just as much of a problem).

I'm not so sure about that. If nothing actually existed, there would be no such thing as a question. There would only be a complete void of no dimension.

 

[Silenus]

The history of science has no bearing on the validity of past methods. Modern chemistry has a basis in medieval alchemy. Just because modern chemistry is valid does not make alchemy also valid by historical relationship.

You're right that I cannot verify naturalism by a proof. I validate it from experience. Seeing as science deals with examine things using said senses, science being methodically naturalistic seems like the most logical idea.

Yes, I agree. I wasn't arguing that Christian metaphysics is valid because it helped give birth to science; I am saying that science doesn't depend on naturalism for its validity. The senses are ever changing and yet, science assumes a unity behind the changing senses. Under naturalism there is no reason to make that assumption except on the basis that is seems to work.

Ah, but the problem is this: you would never be able to tell when induction is no longer valid and that you must switch to this deductive method. If you find something that could be apparently contradictory to logic (nothing of which has been found) you would never know if more observations will perhaps lead to something that actually isn't illogical. You could be leaving something out. No matter what you do; you will never rule out ALL of the possibilities. It is then never appropriate to suddenly introduce "explanations" which do not satisfy human need to test and replicate said things. Besides, don't you see that a "supernatural" explanation has no positive proof of its own — that it can't? You're trying to do a game of "elimination" without knowing all of the possibilities or even if you've attained all your data. There is no reason to entertain such a hypothetical because it has never happened and no evidence suggests it ever will. If we had all knowledge and could be 100% sure of the validity of our observations; yes. However, such knowledge does not exist. Therefore, your deductive method will never work.

But this whole discussion and naturalism itself does not rest on inductive reasoning, it rests on deduction. Eventually, without deduction, you have no content at all. Throw out deduction you throw out language and math. I can see the point of, say, something like light where our earlier definition was flawed which lead to a apparent contradiction. Once the definition was fixed, the apparent contradiction disappeared. By that situation is entirely different from this situation. This situation deals with the very nature of the naturalistic hypothesis and the fact that it depends on fundamental principles which, not that it can't explain, but that it explicitly excludes from its metaphysic. If I start with naturalism, I end with determinism. there is not way around that chain. It’s not a case of observation purifying definitions; it’s a case of the possible vs. the impossible.

Now, I never asked, maybe you are a determinist and this holds no problem for you, I actually never asked that. Anyway, don't be surprised if I don't respond for a while, I'm about to be really busy for awhile. But I'll try to keep going.

 

[Enkidu1434]

Sojourner, you mentioned that you are trying to find "the cause behind the effect." Are you referring to an initial cause, something similar to the prime mover discussed in the works of Aristotle and Aquinas? That is, are you asking what some atheists (I would not like to subject all atheists to a similar line of thinking on this particular issue) believe caused the first movement that has caused all subsequent movements? Or are you asking what governs the laws of physics. For example, are you asking what made the makes an apple fall from a tree (law of gravity), or are you asking what makes the law that causes the law of gravity? I just need a little clarification before I can respond.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Nothing is something, nothing is an impossiblity of anything. It cannot be described by anything "that is" since it is "nothing" of "that is". It is the voidness of everything "that is" and something must in all terms exist. Metaphysics is pointless other then the branch of ontology. Its use is null and void considering nothing actually defines the human identity through it. Only the make-up of the human-personality.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Sojourner, you mentioned that you are trying to find "the cause behind the effect." Are you referring to an initial cause, something similar to the prime mover discussed in the works of Aristotle and Aquinas? That is, are you asking what some atheists (I would not like to subject all atheists to a similar line of thinking on this particular issue) believe caused the first movement that has caused all subsequent movements? Or are you asking what governs the laws of physics. For example, are you asking what made the makes an apple fall from a tree (law of gravity), or are you asking what makes the law that causes the law of gravity? I just need a little clarification before I can respond.

Well first of all I'm not after any answers myself. I want to know what you believe to be the reason for everything that is.

 

[quatona]

Well first of all I'm not after any answers myself. I want to know what you believe to be the reason for everything that is.

You do understand that some of us think that "the reason for everything that exists" is a logical impossibility, in the first place, and that your question is therefore invalid, don´t you?
Just to make sure we are not talking past each other.

 

[David Gould]

I'm not so sure about that. If nothing actually existed, there would be no such thing as a question. There would only be a complete void of no dimension.

But looking at it philosophically, from outside, so to speak, why is there nothing rather than something is an equally valid question. After all, either nothing or something has to exist. Why is one more likely than the other?